I don't think there is another decent review of Dorothy Parker's life in print.

I could go on and on about the individual bits of interesting data the book highlights: her relationship with Benchley, the Algonquin Round Table, Vanity Fair, the New Yorker, plus her socio-political views, her misguided love life, her bitterness/love toward men. I suppose I could tell you a lot about what this book says in these regards.

I could lament how I think she is still an underrated fiction writer, as most people get stuck on her quips and witticisms, but her better skill was in unpeeling the subtleties of the everyday moment. I could, couldn't I?

There is plenty I could say about her insecurities, her foolish business mistakes and something bizarre about her dog. Oh yes, that would be interesting, that whole dog thing.

Instead, I'll just tell you this book is what is says, a thorough examination of the life of Dorothy Parker. You will be happy you bought it. It says everything I didn't say and more.

I fully recommend this book.

Anthony Trendl

Meade's book, obviously the result of years of research, takes the reader behind the public image of Dorothy Parker as just the rapier wit of the Algonquin Round Table to show us the complexity of her life. The joy and the tears are both well presented. This is a great read, even for those who are not familiar with Parker. A remarkable book about a remarkable woman.

I was amazed to learn what I didn't know about Dorothy Parker - despite the fact I thought I knew a _lot_ about her. I was wrong and you might be, too. Did she really marry a homosexual man twice? What really was the relationship between Dorthy and Robert Benchley? Was she a Communist? And is Lillian Hellman as wonderful as M's Hellman makes herself out to be? These questions (and of course much more) are answered by this book.
You may think you know Dorthy Parker, with her "Men don't make passes.." and other witticisms that seemed to spring effortlessly from her mouth, but she was a lot more than a "flapper" or perhaps an "early feminist" - she was a true bundle of contradictions.
It's not the "feel good" story of the year, after all, if you've been interested in Dorothy Parker enough to read this far, you already know how the story will end. But it still is a wonderful read.
I suggest reading this with "The Portable Parker" as it definitely gives you an insight into the way her mind worked.
I intend to find out the exact address of her ashes and pay a visit to that esteemed place, since I now know where her ashes are located. And you will, too, if you take my advice and read this book.

Marion Meade's "Stealing Heaven" is a wonderful and touching account of the love affair between Peter Abelard, one of the most significant thinkers of his age, and Heloise, who in a different time period, might well have been considered the same.

A book like this has to be written as a novel. The events are too far in the distant past, and too many details have been lost, for much else. As such, it is well written and beautifully presented. It engages the reader, and captures the "feel" of 12th century France.

This being said, the book is not without its flaws. The focus is almost entirely on Heloise and her personal sacrifices -- and there were two persons in this relationship. In one sense, Abelard suffered far greater loss, both personally and professionally than did Heloise. This is not adequately displayed in the novel. Meade makes numerous negative speculations about Abelard's motives and feelings which really can't fairly be made. Essentially, Meade tends to look at the characters from a post-modern feminist viewpoint -- which is fine, as long as the reader is aware of what she is doing, and that her (Meade's) philosophical presuppositons were not those inherent in 12th century France!

Somewhat disturbing was Meade's suggestion that Abelard was (or had been) engaged in homosexual relations with one or more of his students prior to his involvment with Heloise. This is a rather serious (and unsubstantiated) charge which, in the eyes of many, would detract from his character, but which is not borne out by the available historical evidence.

I recommend this book with caution. If you are looking for an entertaining historical novel about some extremely colorful characters, you will enjoy this book. But you need to realize that there is a good deal of fiction mixed in with fact -- and it is not always easy to discern the difference.

I was thrilled to find the book. I had seen the movie and was fascinated by the story of Heloise and Abelard, but I was not prepared for the richness of this book. It covers the politics of the day (and the politics of the church), the history of impending war, and, with great passion, the forbidden love between two of history's greatest minds. The story of Heloise's life building her convent was fascinating. This book will remain close at hand for re-reads whenever I need a fix of great storytelling.

This is an absolutely wonderful book which has a slightly different take on the legendary Abelard & Heloise love story because it's written from her point of view. She is an intelligent, compelling and passionate woman who touched me deeply. The book is written in lovely language and provides wonderful descriptions of medieval France--you feel like you are running the streets of Paris with Heloise in her youth...and you stay with her through all the trials of her lost love, betrayals, lost and found faith and overall an incredible compassion for humanity. It is a great book because it shows Heloise in both her private and public selves and traces her life to eventual redemption. Fascinating and moving...I wept and smiled at the end.

'Eleanor of Aquitaine' is the story of the 12th century French queen of both England and France. Hers was an interesting life, and Marion Meade tells it quite well. In a real Epic, Eleanor marries the kings of France and of England, goes on a crusade, gives birth to no less then 10 children, including Richard Lion Heart and King John. She divorces one husband and participates in a rebellion against the second. She helps to of her sons reign as kings, and finally dies before watching the collapse of the empire she so desired.

The problem with Meade's narrative is that much of what she describes seems debatable. As a previous reviewer noted, this seems as much fiction as fact. hardly a page goes by without the words 'must have' appearing somewhere. Much of the thoughts, plans, and ideas of Eleanor and other characters is pure speculation. Worse yet, often some of the actions and whereabouts of characters are given based on extreme circumstantial evidence.

Meade is also trying to hard to model Eleanor into a modern style feminist. Although she constantly attempts to depict Eleanor as an active, resourceful and wise woman, who rarely if ever makes mistakes, it is quite clear that Eleanor does not fit into that model. In fact, I got the impression you could easily have written the story of Eleanor as an essentially passive bystander in the political dramas involving her parents, husbands and children.

The footnotes, by the way, are complete waste of time for anyone trying to distinguish fact and fiction in Meade's work, unless one is a scholar of the period.

Ultimately 'Eleanor of Aquitaine' is a very good read, but one suspects it is a poor history.

Name 5 important women born between 100 a.d. and 1900 a.d. Eleanor of Aquitaine has to be on your list, perhaps in the first or second postion.

Born in the 12th century, she married Louis VII of France, divorced him and married Henry II King of England. She bore 10 children, 2 to Louis, and 8 to Henry. Among them Prince John and Richard the lion hearted of Robin Hood fame.

It was a time of great change. The Church was changing. It no longer saw women soley as the spawn of Satan. The cult of the Virgin Mary was taking hold. The politics of monarchy were changing. King Louis VII ruled only a small portion of what is modern day France. King Henry II wasn't even English, but a French nobleman who benefited from the untimely death of William the Conqueror's heir, and Civil War in England. He could "seize the day".(Horace) The second crusade led by Louis, failed miserably; perhaps some of modern day Muslin/Christian conflict has roots here. It appears that Louis did not heed Horace's advice.

And Eleanor, where was she? Well she joined Louis on the Crusade. In fact she was blamed for the outcome of the first disasterous battle. It seems that it is easier to blame the queen and her excessive luggage, than the head of the crusading army. Thousands began the Crusade, only hundreds returned. It is not hard to imagine how Eleanor and the others felt. But, she was stuck with Louis. Or was she? Louis needed a male heir, and Eleanor had not produced one. Divorce was not what Louis wanted, but he did need that male heir, and Eleanor was not getting any younger. And so, he freed Eleanor.

Imagine Louis' surprise at her marrying Henry just 8 weeks later. By the way she forgot to ask his permission. Louis was not happy.

But Henry was. He got Eleanor and Acquitaine, 5 sons of which 4 survived to manhood, 3 daughters who through marriage, could be used to achieve his political ambitions. Everything is going so well. Then what does he do? Well, Henry falls in love. Eleanor moves out, back to Aquitaine. And then? The male children of this estranged couple plot against their father, then seek asylum with Louis Capet, Eleanor's X. Of course, mother Eleanor is easy to blame.

In modern terms we might refer to this family as disfunctional. However, that disfunction had a price, and a payoff. France and England warred on and off over the next 300 years. Eleanor's decendants sat on the thrones of England, France, Jerusalem, and the Holy Roman Empire. We remember her today. And unlike many of the middle ages chroniclers, we think that she was important and we admire her.

It is difficult to write a biography from the distance of eight or nine centuries. There are few reliable, contemporay sources. It is most difficult to write one about the most powerful woman in Europe, since few thought that women were important enough to chronicle except in the blame game. Marion Meade has done such an admirable job. Her biography make Eleanor come alive. That this book, copywrited in 1977, remains in print is a testament to her impecable research and excellent writing.

I highly recommend this book.

Just as with most world-wide examples today, the historical lives of English monarchs and other persons of power and fame was dominated by men. But, as women mature I personally believe we grow weary of so much exposure to one-sided male perspective. This book helped alleviate my weariness. Meade does Eleanor, and the rest of us, a service by telling Eleanor's incredible story of power and politics and gender with a historians well researched, reasoned clarity, a scholar's forth-rightness, and a woman's sensitivity. And what a story did Eleanor's life make!

I've always wondered why people would bother to spend considerable amounts of time and energy researching, interviewing, compiling facts and writing biographies of people they obviously intensely dislike. Marion Meade's disdain for Woody Allen is almost palpable on every page of this book. Basically, she presents Allen as a contemptible, meanspirited, self-absorbed, self-loathing misanthrope capable of teutonic cruelty and with nary a redeeming quality. So the question is: why bother? Sure, her subject is full of flaws (big surprise) and probably won't be publishing a guide to successful relationships anytime soon, but he does deserve better than this. That said, this book isn't your usual Kitty Kelley trash. It is meticulously researched and gracefully written, at times insightful and illuminating and extensively annotated. The author has done her homework and written this book with considerable effort and care. However, I couldn't get over the fact that she seems to more or less hate Woody Allen, even while describing the factors in his childhood and background that might have led to the behavior she condemns. This is, however, the best of all the Woody Allen biographies (the others were poorly researched or simply sycophantic), and worth reading, if one reads with an open mind.

Meade's book will never be mistaken for a work of great biography. The book is fascinating nevertheless. Particularly for all the gossipy stuff. We are spared the whining of Mia's own book, and the get rich quick trash of the maid who wrote a book about the one of '90s greatest scandals. I'm an enormous Allen fan and have seen each and everyone of his movies--Meade doesn't pretend to be a movie critic, but spins some interesting tales. I admit I enjoyed the gossip. It is actually pretty well balanced--there is no defending Woody's actions of course. But Mia has long since been martyred and Meade tells us just what a kook Mia is. While completely unauthorized, it is still accurate. Eric Lax's bio, with Woody's blessing, is the better of the two most famous one (including this) and has been reissued. They are fun to read as companion pieces however. I have not yet read John Baxter's recent bio, perhaps in the near future--so I cannot compare. If you love Woody's art, stick to the critical pieces by the academics (Reconstructing Woody, and countless ones from university presses). If you want gossip and some insight, start here. A fun read to learn more about own of our greatest artists--warts and all.

I recommend this biography to anyone interested in film, in celebrity, in what it means to be a public figure, and in what it means to be an artist. You do not have to be interested in Allen per se to admire the craftsmanship of this book. Meade tells her story well, and in this case an unauthorized biography seems the best way to capture this aloof filmmaker and his hermetic personality. Anyone purporting to give the "inside" story of Woody Allen is probably purveying a fiction. It takes a shrewd biographer working from the outside to see the Woody Allen phenomenon with clarity.

Though Meade seems to enjoy Keaton's screen work, most of what she writes about him personally is written with either scorn or the most obnoxious form of pity. She really doesn't write like she cares much for her subject. Meade also makes a claim that Keaton was illiterate but the proof isn't substantial. It's a miracle I even finished the book. Meade's comments just become too annoying. One thing though, the filmography is very good.

If you do read this and it is the first book that you've read about Buster, you should follow it up with another biography. Try digging up a copy of Rudi Blesh's "Keaton."

Meade paints Keaton as a pitiful man and never seems to get at the heart of his passion for the cinema. The only emotion I felt towards Keaton, one of my personal heroes, after reading this book was pity. I don't recommend it for anyone who has never previously read anything about the Great Stoneface.

This would be a much better book, except questionable statements (i.e. Buster was illiterate) and some vulgar speculations (i.e. Rappe & Arbuckle) make me doubt the validity of other information. She does not paint a pleasant picture of Buster especially after his decline after joining MGM. However, the fact remains that except for a few brief moments, post-Spite Marriage, Buster rarely rose to great heights again. The Filmography is very good.